UK supports Gigastack feasibility study with ITM Power, Ørsted, Element Energy; gigawatt-scale PEM electrolysis
30 August 2019
ITM Power announced funding from the UK Government for the Gigastack feasibility study with Ørsted and Element Energy. The project funding is for the feasibility phase leading, if successful, to the opportunity to bid for further funding for the implementation.
Gigastack, funded by the BEIS Hydrogen Supply Competition, will demonstrate the delivery of bulk, low-cost and zero-carbon hydrogen through gigawatt-scale polymer electrolyte membrane (PEM) electrolysis, manufactured in the UK. The project aims to reduce the cost of electrolytic hydrogen through:
Development of a new 5MW stack module design to reduce material costs.
A new semi-automated manufacturing facility with an electrolyzer capacity of up to c. 1GW/year to increase throughput and decrease labour costs.
Deployment of very large scale and hence low cost 100MW+ electrolyzer systems using multiple 5MW units.
Innovations in the siting and operation of these large electrolyzers to exploit synergies with large GW scale renewable energy deployments.
The deployment of PEM electrolyzers on such a large scale has not been possible to date, as it requires low-cost stack modules which are easily integrated into larger electrolyzer systems, and much larger automated manufacturing facilities (the largest electrolyzer factories globally are capable of less than 30MW of capacity output per annum).
ITM Power’s proposed innovations in stack design and manufacturing techniques will address these issues and reduce the cost of installing an electrolyzer such that the capital cost contribution to the eventual cost of hydrogen becomes less significant, being dominated by the cost of electricity.
Ørsted will demonstrate the synergy between GW-scale offshore wind energy deployments and hydrogen that will enable the continued decarbonization through renewables and a continued cost out of offshore wind power projects.
In Phase One (feasibility), ITM Power will develop the designs and finalize the material requirements to deliver a low-cost 5MW stack. ITM Power will also refine concepts to maximize the throughput of the proposed semi-automated manufacturing facility to meet the demands of bulk hydrogen supply.
Ørsted will investigate potential synergies between offshore wind farms and electrolyzers to identify scenarios that can provide affordable electricity and a sufficient load factor to allow economic operation of the electrolyzers.
Finally, Element Energy will conduct market analysis of potential end users, explore business models for the operation of large electrolyzers in the energy system and define a roll-out strategy for the first 100MW electrolyzers.
In Phase Two, the 5MW stack would be built and tested both in-house and in a representative windhydrogen scenario. Construction of the semi-automated manufacturing facility would also begin. Finally, the business case for large electrolyzers would be refined, enabling commercialization.
This may be one of the best way to use (and store) excess energy produced by local REs?
Posted by: HarveyD | 30 August 2019 at 09:32 AM
Electrolyzers run something like 60% efficiency; the round-trip losses from PTGTP are going to be well over half. Throwing H2 into NG pipelines pretty much wastes everything that's good about H2 by making it difficult to recover.
Hypedrogen is the bad-yet-trendy idea* for energy storage. Highview Power has a much more efficient and scalable scheme; they are claiming efficiency as high as 75%, but even the low-ball round-trip figure of 60% is about equal to just the electrolysis step of H2. There is nothing explosive and the hardware is very cheap both to own and to operate. We should be building literally GW of these things TODAY.
* Ever notice that we have a LOT of bad ideas that are nevertheless trendy and eat up mindshare (and research and subsidy money), pushing out things that could actually WORK? We live in a sea of propaganda. Who benefits from this propaganda? Follow the money.
How much have you made this week, AlzHarvey?
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 30 August 2019 at 12:30 PM
'Electrolyzers run something like 60% efficiency'
No they don't.
A reasonable evaluation means getting the basics right, not pulling duff stuff out of a hat.
Posted by: Davemart | 30 August 2019 at 12:39 PM
They can use waste heat to make the process more efficient.
Posted by: SJC | 30 August 2019 at 01:15 PM
Leave to China, Japa, So-Korea, Norway and Denmark to mass produce and install1000++ GW most efficient electrolysers and REs. Rest of EU and USA will have to follow unless much lower cost (quicker installation Nuke) become available?
Posted by: HarveyD | 30 August 2019 at 02:19 PM
S. Korea is marketing 1400 MWe nuclear reactors world-wide, AlzHarvey. Whatever happens with hypedrogen is going to be a sideshow compared to that.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 30 August 2019 at 07:20 PM
@EP,
On Higher Heating Value (HHV) of hydrogen, the efficiency of room-temp electrolysis can be above 85%. This is important, because when the Hydrogen is used for room heating and for combined power and heat, the round-trip efficiency can be as much as 80%.
Now then, if low-grade waste heat or solar heat is applied to evaporate the water before electrolysis, aka steam electrolysis, even the Lower Heating Value (LHV) of Hydrogen's efficiency can be as high as 85% WRT electrical energy input, for low-temp electrolysis, or even higher, with efficiency above unity, with high-temp electrolysis.
Posted by: Roger Pham | 31 August 2019 at 02:30 AM
PEM electrolyzers are 80% efficient according to Wiki.
Posted by: SJC | 31 August 2019 at 03:43 AM
We should not be talking about what could, may or might be but refer to current SOA possibilities. Current electrolyzers reach an efficiency of approx. 70% at standard ambient room temp.. Waste heat (up to 80° C) tied into this process results in a negligible increase of overall efficiency. A considerable boost in efficiency is reached with additional temperatures around 700 to 800° C; such temperatures are by no means achieved as waste and lower the overall system efficiency.
Posted by: yoatmon | 31 August 2019 at 03:47 AM
"PEM electrolysis has an electrical efficiency of about 80%...
expected to reach 82-86% before 2030"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymer_electrolyte_membrane_electrolysis
Posted by: SJC | 31 August 2019 at 10:58 AM
Pro nuclear SAEP will continue to claim100% efficiency and will never admit that clean REs, electrolysers, H2 production and storage, FCs, FCEVs (ground, sea and air units) have a great future and will play a major role in worldwide efforts to contain and reduce pollution and GHGs.
Posted by: HarveyD | 31 August 2019 at 12:07 PM
AlzHarvey lies:
Never said that and never will. I wrote Entropy Blues 15 years ago and I haven't changed my views.
The gross inefficiencies in hypedrogen production, storage... and reconversion to its original form will make it a far more expensive medium for most uses than nuclear energy. AlzHarvey will never admit what Dr. James Hansen declared years ago: the best decarbonized electric grids in the world do not use wind and PV, but hydro and nuclear. Of those, only nuclear can scale.
AlzHarvey is a propagandist for the Green propaganda pushed by fossil-fuel interests.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 31 August 2019 at 07:02 PM
People who can not refute facts resort to insults.
Posted by: SJC | 01 September 2019 at 06:53 AM
Current, near future and future clean energy development and production is proving Dr Hansen and SAEP mostly wrong with regards to on going energy production trend.
REs (Hydro/Wind/Solar) combo together with minimum storage for 24/7 service is a strong possibility, specially where variable Hydro, with large water reservoirs, is used as the filler to supply energy for peak demands and whenever wind/solar is not producing enough energy.
The arrival of many home energy production units in Eastern USA States and very low cost NG have contributed to a NET reduction of 6% of very low cost (2.26 cents/kWh) Hydro/Wind electricity export in 2019.
With a few exceptions, the construction of new very high cost NPPs (20 cents to 28 cent/kWh) are being delayed or cancelled. For 2018/2019, more NPPs are being turned down than new units are being commissioned. Could this trend be changed with the arrival of lower cost mass produced much smaller NPPs? Opinions and studies have a wide variety of results depending on who is financing them. With Wind/Solar cost going down fast towards 1.5 to 2.5 cents/kWh, nuclear will have a hard time to come back and be competitive..
Posted by: HarveyD | 01 September 2019 at 07:13 AM
Thanks Harvey,
This site is not moderated nor monitored,
some like that so they can insult others without consequence.
Posted by: SJC | 01 September 2019 at 07:26 AM
AlzHarvey lies AGAIN:
He lies by misdirection. Production is irrelevant; what matters is emissions. The French, Swedish and Ontario grids have far lower emissions than "renewable" Germany and Denmark. This is because they do not use or need much (if any) fossil fuel for "backup" and "firming".
Conventional hydro is the only form of non-chemical, non-nuclear stored energy that works on the scale of weeks to seasons. There is only so much of it and it comes at the cost of destroyed ecosystems and extinct fish runs.
Barakah's projected power cost is around 11¢/kWh. In S. Korea that figure is quite a bit lower because it didn't require hiring overseas labor.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 01 September 2019 at 10:43 AM
The average cost of the energy produced by new completed NPPs is 22 cents/kWh and not 11 cents/kWh. The real total average cost, including disaster insurances and spent fuel proper disposal, would be closer to 30+ cents/kWh.
Posted by: HarveyD | 02 September 2019 at 09:05 AM
Limited number 22 cents/kWh NPPs could be installed to supply some of the steady base load and reduce storage/pollution/GHGs, even if it would double/triple the total e-energy cost in many places.. It may be the price to pay for a cleaner environment?
Posted by: HarveyD | 03 September 2019 at 06:55 AM
Interesting to see how Harvey' views have shifted over time clearly the brain cells are hard at work and b.s. filters are stronger in response to 'environ' mental challenges!
Could be a case of what don't kill you makes you stronger??
Posted by: Arnold | 03 September 2019 at 05:27 PM